|
U-Know! Forum » New Environment Agency Chairman Has Links To Fracking |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
Monganaut 2373 posts |
Jul 22, 2014, 22:57
|
||
|
Why does this kinda shit not surprise me. Talk about I'll scratch your back etc ... and vested interests. Whatever happened to impartiality in these kind of important positions? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/22/environment-agency-chairman-fracking-links |
|||
ron 706 posts |
Jul 29, 2014, 18:53
|
||
|
Monganaut wrote: Why does this kinda shit not surprise me. Talk about I'll scratch your back etc ... and vested interests. Whatever happened to impartiality in these kind of important positions? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/22/environment-agency-chairman-fracking-links Cheers...
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Jul 30, 2014, 07:43
|
||
|
ron wrote: Monganaut wrote: Why does this kinda shit not surprise me. Talk about I'll scratch your back etc ... and vested interests. Whatever happened to impartiality in these kind of important positions? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/22/environment-agency-chairman-fracking-links Cheers... It's business, just like everything else. Opponents to Frac'ing are just sticking their heads in the sand and believing a bunch of scare stories. Frac'ing will happen, we will see the benefits and it'll cost very little in terms of people or environment. It's a low carbon option and reduces our dependence on French Nuclear through the interconnect, not to mention it's a stable source of clean, abundant energy. It's water, sand/glass beads and normal drinking water biocide for the most part. Bring it on! :-) |
|||
riverman 845 posts |
Jul 30, 2014, 21:33
|
||
|
jshell wrote: ron wrote: Monganaut wrote: Why does this kinda shit not surprise me. Talk about I'll scratch your back etc ... and vested interests. Whatever happened to impartiality in these kind of important positions? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/22/environment-agency-chairman-fracking-links Cheers... It's business, just like everything else. Opponents to Frac'ing are just sticking their heads in the sand and believing a bunch of scare stories. Frac'ing will happen, we will see the benefits and it'll cost very little in terms of people or environment. It's a low carbon option and reduces our dependence on French Nuclear through the interconnect, not to mention it's a stable source of clean, abundant energy. It's water, sand/glass beads and normal drinking water biocide for the most part. Bring it on! :-) The development of unconventional gas deposits is an energy-intensive undertaking. The enormous amounts of heavy equipment needed to pump water and create adequate drilling pressure required to extract gas from shale produce significant emissions. The construction of well pads, the collection of water and disposal of wastes all entail transportation-related emissions. Much of the production on an unconventional well pad, such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, is powered by polluting diesel engines.[13] The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research estimates that CO2 emissions from gas drilling amount to 15 kg CO2 per foot drilled from diesel powered engine use alone.[14] Well depths in the Marcellus Shale, which are remarkably deep, can reach up to 8,000 feet vertically and another 11,000 feet horizontally.[15] A total well length measuring 19,000 feet would produce 285,000 kg (285 metric tones) of CO2 from diesel engines alone. When calculating associated CO2 emissions, unconventional wells are set apart from conventional wells for two reasons: extended well distance due to horizontal drilling and, more importantly, hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, the Tyndall Centre reports, is the main source of CO2 emissions from unconventional gas drilling. Heavy CO2 emissions are linked back to the engine-powered fracking process, including the blending of fracturing chemicals and sand that are pumped from storage, and the high-pressure compression, injection and recovery of materials into and out of the well.[16] After calculating key CO2 emissions from shale gas extraction, the Tyndall Centre estimates that a single well drilled once for unconventional gas will emit somewhere between 348-438 metric tonnes of CO2. As high as this figure is, it only reflects a portion of CO2 emissions and does not account for the entire spectrum of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from unconventional gas drilling. Beyond the issue of CO2 emissions, there are mounting concerns regarding gas’ main component: methane. Fugitive methane is an enormous additional source of GHG emissions from gas drilling. According to a recent lifecycle analysis performed by a team of Cornell University scientists led by Professor Robert W. Howarth, unconventional gas—particularly when it is extracted from shale using hydraulic fracturing methods—is likely to present an even greater climate disruption threat than coal and oil, the other dirty fossil fuels. Due to the substantial methane emissions from extraction, processing and transport, unconventional gas may have a greater overall GHG impact than previously understood. Howarth and his coauthors maintain that when these lifecycles aspects are considered “the large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming.”[17] The most recent analysis conducted by Howarth’s team at Cornell, recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Climatic Change Letters, states that on a 20-year time horizon “the GHG footprint for shale gas is at least 20% greater than and perhaps more than twice as great as that for coal when expressed per quantity of energy available during combustion.”[18] Professor Howarth calculates that the extraction, processing and transport of natural gas, when considered in tandem with methane leaks, places natural gas ahead of other fossil fuels in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions. “The take home message of the study” says Professor Howarth, is “if you do an integration [study] of 20 years following the development of the gas, that shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is in fact worse than coal and is worse than oil.”[19] The Cornell team has cautioned politicians and industry against a large-scale switch to natural gas, warning that the scramble to develop unconventional gas reserves without considering the full impact of the process could bring dire consequences for the global climate. The predicted increase of gas production in the US has some analysts worried that gas will not substitute for other dirty fuel sources like coal, but will instead be used in addition to other sources, further contributing to growing total fossil fuel consumption.[20] Despite rapidly increasing domestic production rates, some industry leaders admit that the US, due to ever increasing energy demands, will continue to be a net importer of gas.[21] The Cornell study does not provide a definitive answer on the methane issue, but it raises enough concerns to warrant both an immediate moratorium on issuing new fracking permits to gas companies and the urgent need for further study.
|
|||
|
riverman 845 posts |
Jul 30, 2014, 21:33
|
||
|
jshell wrote: ron wrote: Monganaut wrote: Why does this kinda shit not surprise me. Talk about I'll scratch your back etc ... and vested interests. Whatever happened to impartiality in these kind of important positions? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/22/environment-agency-chairman-fracking-links Cheers... It's business, just like everything else. Opponents to Frac'ing are just sticking their heads in the sand and believing a bunch of scare stories. Frac'ing will happen, we will see the benefits and it'll cost very little in terms of people or environment. It's a low carbon option and reduces our dependence on French Nuclear through the interconnect, not to mention it's a stable source of clean, abundant energy. It's water, sand/glass beads and normal drinking water biocide for the most part. Bring it on! :-) The development of unconventional gas deposits is an energy-intensive undertaking. The enormous amounts of heavy equipment needed to pump water and create adequate drilling pressure required to extract gas from shale produce significant emissions. The construction of well pads, the collection of water and disposal of wastes all entail transportation-related emissions. Much of the production on an unconventional well pad, such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, is powered by polluting diesel engines.[13] The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research estimates that CO2 emissions from gas drilling amount to 15 kg CO2 per foot drilled from diesel powered engine use alone.[14] Well depths in the Marcellus Shale, which are remarkably deep, can reach up to 8,000 feet vertically and another 11,000 feet horizontally.[15] A total well length measuring 19,000 feet would produce 285,000 kg (285 metric tones) of CO2 from diesel engines alone. When calculating associated CO2 emissions, unconventional wells are set apart from conventional wells for two reasons: extended well distance due to horizontal drilling and, more importantly, hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, the Tyndall Centre reports, is the main source of CO2 emissions from unconventional gas drilling. Heavy CO2 emissions are linked back to the engine-powered fracking process, including the blending of fracturing chemicals and sand that are pumped from storage, and the high-pressure compression, injection and recovery of materials into and out of the well.[16] After calculating key CO2 emissions from shale gas extraction, the Tyndall Centre estimates that a single well drilled once for unconventional gas will emit somewhere between 348-438 metric tonnes of CO2. As high as this figure is, it only reflects a portion of CO2 emissions and does not account for the entire spectrum of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from unconventional gas drilling. Beyond the issue of CO2 emissions, there are mounting concerns regarding gas’ main component: methane. Fugitive methane is an enormous additional source of GHG emissions from gas drilling. According to a recent lifecycle analysis performed by a team of Cornell University scientists led by Professor Robert W. Howarth, unconventional gas—particularly when it is extracted from shale using hydraulic fracturing methods—is likely to present an even greater climate disruption threat than coal and oil, the other dirty fossil fuels. Due to the substantial methane emissions from extraction, processing and transport, unconventional gas may have a greater overall GHG impact than previously understood. Howarth and his coauthors maintain that when these lifecycles aspects are considered “the large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming.”[17] The most recent analysis conducted by Howarth’s team at Cornell, recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Climatic Change Letters, states that on a 20-year time horizon “the GHG footprint for shale gas is at least 20% greater than and perhaps more than twice as great as that for coal when expressed per quantity of energy available during combustion.”[18] Professor Howarth calculates that the extraction, processing and transport of natural gas, when considered in tandem with methane leaks, places natural gas ahead of other fossil fuels in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions. “The take home message of the study” says Professor Howarth, is “if you do an integration [study] of 20 years following the development of the gas, that shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is in fact worse than coal and is worse than oil.”[19] The Cornell team has cautioned politicians and industry against a large-scale switch to natural gas, warning that the scramble to develop unconventional gas reserves without considering the full impact of the process could bring dire consequences for the global climate. The predicted increase of gas production in the US has some analysts worried that gas will not substitute for other dirty fuel sources like coal, but will instead be used in addition to other sources, further contributing to growing total fossil fuel consumption.[20] Despite rapidly increasing domestic production rates, some industry leaders admit that the US, due to ever increasing energy demands, will continue to be a net importer of gas.[21] The Cornell study does not provide a definitive answer on the methane issue, but it raises enough concerns to warrant both an immediate moratorium on issuing new fracking permits to gas companies and the urgent need for further study.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Edited Jul 31, 2014, 07:09
Jul 31, 2014, 07:08
|
||
|
You are really clutching at straws there, FFS! What you linked to is so obviously pish to anyone who knows anything about frac'ing that it can only still be used by those with a personal agenda and failure to look at facts. Howart is an activist who sees clearly that frac'ing is so beneficial, whilst not being 'dirty' that he HAS to find some way to undermine it - just, that he, like others, have failed. It's laughable, just as the piece you quoted was found laughable by the greater scientific community. The problem is that lines are drawn so solidly that people must be 'one or t'other'. It's OK to be 'green' and support frac'ing. The hysteria surrounding it is just that, hysteria. ------------------ New York Times Reversal: Cornell University Research Undermines Hysteria Contention that Shale Gas is “Dirty” Posted on March 4, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment There are new twists to in the ever-entertaining faux debate over the dangers of shale gas. The New York Times, which turned obscure Cornell University marine ecologist Robert Howarth into an anti-fracking rock star in its questionable spring series on shale gas, and got hammered for it by its own public editor—I‘ll take some of the credit—is finally getting on the science bandwagon. Last April, the Times ran two articles in a week heavily promoting Howarth’s bizarre claim that shale gas generates more greenhouse gas emissions than the production and use of coal. It would be difficult to overstate the influence of this paper, which ricocheted through the media echo chamber and was even debated in the British parliament and the European Union. When the Times didn’t report then, and until now has almost systematically ignored, is that almost every independent researcher — at the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Energy Department and numerous independent university teams, including a Carnegie Mellon study partly financed by the Sierra Club — has slammed Howarth’s conclusions. Within the field, Howarth is considered an activist, not an independent scientist. But you’d never know that reading the Times’ fracking coverage, with independent lefty columnist Joe Nocera as the notable, and refreshing, exception. Maybe a little fresh air is finally leaking into the Times insular chambers. Calling Cathles’ report a “fresh rebuttal” of Howarth’s much-maligned study, Dot Earth’s Andrew Revkin cites the latest researcher to diss Howarth’s shaky science by a colleague at Cornell, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences professor Lawrence Cathles, who is an expert in this field, unlike Howarth.
|
|||
|
riverman 845 posts |
Jul 31, 2014, 09:47
|
||
|
And hence there are numerous different positions and complex issues - a petroleum geologist, ecologist, climate scientist, geographer etc may all have different scientifically informed views (the locals affected are likely to have other issues they'd want discussing) so putting a fracking guy in charge of the Environment Agency is crass - which I took as the main point of this thread. jshell wrote: You are really clutching at straws there, FFS! What you linked to is so obviously pish to anyone who knows anything about frac'ing that it can only still be used by those with a personal agenda and failure to look at facts. Howart is an activist who sees clearly that frac'ing is so beneficial, whilst not being 'dirty' that he HAS to find some way to undermine it - just, that he, like others, have failed. It's laughable, just as the piece you quoted was found laughable by the greater scientific community. The problem is that lines are drawn so solidly that people must be 'one or t'other'.
It's OK to be 'green' and support frac'ing. The hysteria surrounding it is just that, hysteria. ------------------ New York Times Reversal: Cornell University Research Undermines Hysteria Contention that Shale Gas is “Dirty” Posted on March 4, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment There are new twists to in the ever-entertaining faux debate over the dangers of shale gas. The New York Times, which turned obscure Cornell University marine ecologist Robert Howarth into an anti-fracking rock star in its questionable spring series on shale gas, and got hammered for it by its own public editor—I‘ll take some of the credit—is finally getting on the science bandwagon. Last April, the Times ran two articles in a week heavily promoting Howarth’s bizarre claim that shale gas generates more greenhouse gas emissions than the production and use of coal. It would be difficult to overstate the influence of this paper, which ricocheted through the media echo chamber and was even debated in the British parliament and the European Union. When the Times didn’t report then, and until now has almost systematically ignored, is that almost every independent researcher — at the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Energy Department and numerous independent university teams, including a Carnegie Mellon study partly financed by the Sierra Club — has slammed Howarth’s conclusions. Within the field, Howarth is considered an activist, not an independent scientist. But you’d never know that reading the Times’ fracking coverage, with independent lefty columnist Joe Nocera as the notable, and refreshing, exception. Maybe a little fresh air is finally leaking into the Times insular chambers. Calling Cathles’ report a “fresh rebuttal” of Howarth’s much-maligned study, Dot Earth’s Andrew Revkin cites the latest researcher to diss Howarth’s shaky science by a colleague at Cornell, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences professor Lawrence Cathles, who is an expert in this field, unlike Howarth.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Jul 31, 2014, 10:10
|
||
|
How is he a Frac'ing guy? He was chairman of a company that provides the following services: http://www.arup.com/Services/Specialist_Technical_Services.aspx Quote: Arup applies its world-class skills in resilience, security and risk, fire, wind, seismic engineering, geotechnics and hydrogeology to better manage the risks associated with natural and man-made hazards, and to develop high-performance solutions for clients worldwide. Our teams include leading thinkers in materials science, building physics, fluid dynamics and façade engineering. They engineer new systems that make our built environment more energy-efficient, durable, comfortable and affordable. ------- I don't get how he's an industry puppet or Shill, though the Gaurdian do try to wind up the Watermellons with every headline, I suppose. Any company that carries out works that may have environmental effects are certain/almost duty bound to carry out 3rd party environmental studies. Not paid-for 'appeasement documents' but, real, valid, accurate studies that are independent and as accurate as possible. I know, I've seen them. And the companies I've worked for often don't like, but have to abide by the results of them.
|
|||
|
ron 706 posts |
Edited Aug 05, 2014, 23:38
Aug 05, 2014, 14:53
|
||
|
jshell wrote: ron wrote: Monganaut wrote: Why does this kinda shit not surprise me. Talk about I'll scratch your back etc ... and vested interests. Whatever happened to impartiality in these kind of important positions? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/22/environment-agency-chairman-fracking-links Cheers... It's business, just like everything else. Opponents to Frac'ing are just sticking their heads in the sand and believing a bunch of scare stories. Frac'ing will happen, we will see the benefits and it'll cost very little in terms of people or environment. It's a low carbon option and reduces our dependence on French Nuclear through the interconnect, not to mention it's a stable source of clean, abundant energy. It's water, sand/glass beads and normal drinking water biocide for the most part. Bring it on! :-) yes... quite. My local heroin dealer assures me that her product is perfectly safe and to pay no attention to those hysterical scare stories... from the movie The Jerk wrote: Navin R. Johnson: [bleakly] I've already given away eight pencils, two hoola dolls, and an ashtray, and I've only taken in fifteen dollars. Frosty: Navin, you have taken in fifteen dollars and given away fifty cents worth of crap, which gives us a net profit of fourteen dollars and fifty cents. Navin R. Johnson: Ah... It's a profit deal. Takes the pressure off. Get your weight guessed right here! Only a buck! Actual live weight guessing! Take a chance and win some crap! you wanna shite in yer own foxhole, that's your business, mate... better my head in the sand whilst I can see the depletion of the water table such that folks in West Texas are drinking their own piss, rather than on my knees to Lord Browne... x x x
|
| U-Know! Forum Index |
